Qualified Theft

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, - versus - REYNALDO BAYON y RAMOS

G.R. No. 168627, July 2, 2010.

FACTS:

Reynaldo Bayon, herein accused, was a masseur and stay-in helper of Atty.
Arturo Limoso, one of the complainants. At about 7:30 a.m. of March 29, 2003, one
of the private complainants Eduardo Cunanan, who was a tenant in one of the rooms
of Atty. Limoso's house, reported to Atty. Limoso the loss of his two wristwatches.
Thereafter, Atty. Limoso asked his household helpers, including appellant, regarding
the missing wristwatches. When confronted by Atty. Limoso, appellant denied any
involvement in the loss of Cunanan's wristwatches.

A few hours later, Atty. Limoso noticed that the keys of his vault were also
missing. And when he used the duplicate key, he successfully opened but to his
surprise, his properties that were placed in the vault were already missing. He then
tried to look for the accused as the latter is the only person who has access to his
room. But the accused was nowhere to be found. Thereafter, Atty. Limoso then
reported the incident to the police. Later, the accused was apprehended.

The accused was investigated without the assistance of a counsel.

Consequently, two complaints were filed against the accused, one is filed for the
properties of Limoso and another complaint insofar as the properties of Cunanan.
The trial court rendered a Decision finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of qualified theft in Criminal Case No. Q-03-116291 (Limoso), but he
was acquitted of the same crime in Criminal Case No. Q-03-116290 (Cunanan) on
the ground of reasonable doubt.

The trial court stated that the prosecution did not offer any direct evidence that
appellant stole the missing items belonging to complainants Eduardo Cunanan and
Atty. Limoso. It held that appellants statement of admission during the custodial
investigation was inadmissable against him, because he was not assisted by counsel;
hence, there is doubt as to appellant’s guilt in Criminal Case No. Q-03-116290 for
theft of the watches and bolo owned by private complainant Eduardo Cunanan.

However, in Criminal Case No. Q-03-116291 for theft of the valuables of Atty.
Limoso, the trial court found that appellants culpability was proven by the
prosecution through the following pieces of circumstantial evidence: (1) as a stay-in
helper of Atty. Limoso, appellant had access to Atty. Limoso's room, where his vault
containing the missing pieces of jewelry were kept, and where the key to the vault
was placed; and (2) upon discovery of the loss of the missing items, the police could
no longer find appellants clothes in Atty. Limosos house.

The Court of Appeals also affirmed said rulings.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused is also liable for qualified theft in Criminal Case
No. Q-03-116291

RULING:

The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. It held that under Article 308 of
the Revised Penal Code (RPC), theft is committed if the following elements are
present: (1) that there be taking of personal property; (2) that said property belongs
to another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done
without the consent of the owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished without
the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things.
Furthermore, article 310 of the RPC, theft becomes qualified if committed by a
domestic servant, or with grave abuse of confidence.

The Court finds that the pieces of circumstantial evidence relied upon by the
appellate court are insufficient to convict appellant of the crime of qualified theft. In
the first circumstance, the Court notes that appellant was not the only stay-in helper
of Atty. Limoso, as the latter testified that he had two housemaids. Although Atty.
Limoso testified that only appellant, as his masseur, had access to his room, this is
doubtful, considering the Filipino lifestyle, in which a household helper is normally
tasked to clean the room of his/her employer. Further, in the second circumstance,
the disappearance of appellant’s clothes from Atty. Limosos house after the
discovery of the loss of the aforementioned valuables cannot be construed as flight
by appellant, since appellant was talking with the guards in the compound where
Atty. Limosos residence was located when he was arrested by the police.

The two pieces of circumstantial evidence cited by the trial court and affirmed
by the appellate court do not form an unbroken chain that point to appellant as the
author of the crime; hence, their conclusion becomes merely conjectural. Notably,
the prosecution failed to establish the element of unlawful taking by appellant. Since
appellants statement during the custodial investigation was inadmissible in evidence
as he was not assisted by counsel, the prosecution could have presented the person
to whom appellant allegedly sold the pieces of jewelry as witness, but it did not do
so. It could have been the missing link that would have strengthened the evidence of
the prosecution.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of

Appeals dated May 31, 2005 in CA-G.R. CR No. 28161, convicting appellant
Reynaldo Bayon y Ramos of the crime of qualified theft, is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Appellant Reynaldo Bayon is ACQUITTED of the crime charged on
reasonable doubt.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, - versus - REYNALDO BAYON y RAMOS,

G.R. No. 168627, July 2, 2010.

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

This an appeal from the Decision1[1] dated May 31, 2005 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 28161. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Decision of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 104 in Criminal Case No.
Q-03-116291, finding appellant Reynaldo Bayon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of qualified theft.

On March 31, 2003, appellant Reynaldo Bayon was charged with theft in an
Information2[2] that reads:
 Criminal Case No. Q-03-116290

That on or about the 29th day of March 2003, in Quezon City, Philippines,
the said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with intent
of gain and without the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof, take, steal
and carry away the following, to wit:

one (1) Rado Diastar wrist watch worth ---- P12,000.00

one (1) Seiko Divers watch worth -----------P 2,000.00

one (1) bolo of undetermined value

Total -----------------P14,000.00

belonging to EDUARDO CUNANAN Y CANDELARIA to the damage and

prejudice of the said owner in the aforesaid amount of P14,000.00 Philippine
Currency.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

On the same day, appellant was also charged with qualified theft in another
lnformation3[3] that reads:

Criminal Case No. Q-03-116291

That on or about the 29th day of March 2003, in Quezon City, Philippines,
the said accused, being, then a stay-in helper of ARTURO LIMOSO Y LOOT at
his residence located at No. 45 Belmonte Street, New Manila, this City, and as such
has free access to the different rooms of the said house, with grave abuse of
confidence, with intent to gain and without the knowledge and consent of the owner
thereof, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry
away the following items, to wit:
 one (1) white gold Rolex wrist watch worth ------ P300,000.00

one (1) Jordan gold wrist watch worth ------------- 65,000.00

five (5) pcs. gold ring worth ------------------------ 125,000.00

two (2) pcs. gold necklace worth P25,000.00 each 50,000.00

----------------

Total --------- P540,000.00

all in the total amount of P540,000.00 Philippine Currency, belonging to ARTURO

LIMOSO Y LOOT, to his damage and prejudice in the amount aforementioned.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

When arraigned on May 6, 2003, appellant pleaded not guilty to both

charges.4[4] The pre-trial was terminated without stipulations. Thereafter, joint trial
of the cases ensued.

The prosecution presented three witnesses, namely, private complainants

Atty. Arturo Limoso and Eduardo Cunanan, and Police Officer Paul Greg Esparta.
It dispensed with the testimonies of Police Officers Marmando Pallasigue and
Edmund Rizon, in view of the stipulation of the parties as follows: (1) the police
officer recovered a Rolex watch from a person in Bulacan; (2) the complainant was
never present in all the stages of the search for the watch; (3) the police officer
turned over the watch to the complainant; and (4) the accused was not assisted by
counsel during the search for the watch.5[5] The parties also stipulated on the
existence of the Affidavit6[6] of Police Officer Marmando Pallasigue.

The defense presented the appellant as its lone witness.

The evidence of the prosecution established that on February 10, 2002, private
complainant Atty. Arturo Limoso, after suffering a stroke, hired appellant as his
masseur and stay-in helper in his house located at No. 45 Belmonte Street, San Jose
Compound, New Manila, Quezon City.7[7]

At about 7:30 a.m. of March 29, 2003, private complainant Eduardo Cunanan,
who was a tenant in one of the rooms of Atty. Limoso's house, reported to Atty.
Limoso the loss of his two wristwatches: a Seiko Diver's watch worth P2,000.00 and
a Rado Diastar watch worth P12,000.00. Atty. Limoso assured Cunanan that he
would investigate the matter. Thereafter, Atty. Limoso asked his household helpers,
including appellant, regarding the missing wristwatches. When confronted by Atty.
Limoso, appellant denied any involvement in the loss of Cunanan's
wristwatches.8[8]

A few hours later, Atty. Limoso suspected that he could also be a victim of
theft. So he went to his locker, and discovered that the key to his vault was missing.
He placed the said key on the wall with his other keys. However, he was able to
open his vault using his duplicate key. He then found that his Rolex watch worth
P300,000.00, Jordan gold watch worth P65,000.00, five gold rings worth
P125,000.00 and two pieces of gold necklace worth P50,000.00 that were all kept
inside the vault were missing.9[9]

Atty. Limoso became suspicious that appellant was the one responsible for
the theft after he made an inquiry from the security guards of the compound. He was
informed that appellant used to leave his house at 10:00 p.m. and returned at around
4:00 a.m. the following day; that appellant used to borrow money from the
household helpers of the neighboring houses; and that most of the time appellant
was nowhere to be found. Moreover, as the one massaging him (Atty. Limoso),
appellant had access to his room.10[10]
 Atty. Limoso again confronted appellant and told him to just return the stolen
things with no questions asked. Appellant replied that he was not the one responsible
for the theft. Atty. Limoso then reported the incident to the police.11[11]

At about 4:00 p.m. of March 29, 2003, the police arrived at Atty. Limoso's
house. Appellant could not be found, and all his clothes were gone. The police stayed
in the house until the evening. At about 10:00 p.m., the police were tipped off that
appellant was at the guardhouse. They immediately proceeded to the guardhouse,
apprehended appellant, and brought him to the police station.12[12]

At the police station, appellant was investigated without the assistance of a

counsel. Through the investigation, the police was able to trace Atty. Limosos Rolex
watch to a sidewalk jeweler, who, upon being investigated, told the police that the
watch was already sold to another person. Atty. Limoso recovered the stolen Rolex
watch after paying P20,000.00 to the buyer who lived in Bulacan. Atty. Limoso,
however, did not recover his Jordan gold watch, rings and necklaces.13[13]
 Appellant interposed the defense of denial. He testified that, at about 7:00 p.m.
of March 29, 2003, he was at the house of his employer, private complainant Atty.
Arturo Limoso, at No. 45 Belmonte Street, San Jose Compound, New Manila,
Quezon City. At about 8:00 p.m., while he was at the guardhouse of the compound
and talking to the security guards assigned there, he was suddenly arrested by the
police and was brought to the police station. He did not know the reason for his
arrest. Although he was informed of his rights, he did not know what they
meant.14[14]

On February 17, 2004, the trial court rendered a Decision15[15] finding

appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified theft in Criminal
Case No. Q-03-116291, but he was acquitted of the same crime in Criminal Case
No. Q-03-116290 on the ground of reasonable doubt. The dispositive portion of the
Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused, REYNALDO BAYON Y

RAMOS, guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. Q03-116291 of the
crime of QUALIFIED THEFT defined and penalized in Article 310, in relation to
Article 309, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code and sentences him to an
indeterminate penalty of ten years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to
twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, as well as orders him to
return the Jordan gold watch worth P65,000.00, the five gold rings worth
P125,000.00 and two pieces of gold necklace worth P25,000.00 [each] to Atty.
Arturo Limoso or pay the value thereof.

In Criminal Case No. Q03-116290, judgment is hereby rendered acquitting

Reynaldo Bayon y Ramos of the offense charged on ground of reasonable doubt.
 SO ORDERED.16[16]

The trial court stated that the prosecution did not offer any direct evidence that
appellant stole the missing items belonging to complainants Eduardo Cunanan and
Atty. Limoso. It held that appellants statement of admission during the custodial
investigation was inadmissable against him, because he was not assisted by counsel;
hence, there is doubt as to appellants guilt in Criminal Case No. Q-03-116290 for
theft of the watches and bolo owned by private complainant Eduardo Cunanan.

However, in Criminal Case No. Q-03-116291 for theft of the valuables of

Atty. Limoso, the trial court found that appellants culpability was proven by the
prosecution through the following pieces of circumstantial evidence: (1) as a stay-in
helper of Atty. Limoso, appellant had access to Atty. Limoso's room, where his vault
containing the missing pieces of jewelry were kept, and where the key to the vault
was placed; and (2) upon discovery of the loss of the missing items, the police could
no longer find appellants clothes in Atty. Limosos house.

Appellant appealed the trial courts decision to the Court of Appeals,

contending that the trial court erred in convicting him in Criminal Case No. Q-03-
116291. He asserted that the circumstantial evidence presented against him by the
prosecution was insufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and that
there was nothing whatsoever that would link him to the commission of the crime of
theft.17[17]

In its Decision18[18] dated May 31, 2005, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
decision of the trial court with modification in the penalty imposed. The dispositive
portion of the Decision reads:

UPON THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THIS CASE, THUS, the Decision

appealed from is AFFIRMED, subject to the MODIFICATION that the accused-
appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with all the
accessories of the penalty imposed under Article 40 of the Revised Penal
Code.19[19]

Hence, this appeal by appellant.

The main issue is whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in finding
appellant Reynaldo Bayon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified
theft in Criminal Case No. Q-03-116291.
 The petition is granted.

Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code defines the crime of theft as follows:

Art. 308. Who are liable for theft. Theft is committed by any person who,
with intent to gain, but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force
upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latter's consent.

The elements of the crime of theft are: (1) that there be taking of personal
property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with
intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and (5)
that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation
of persons or force upon things.20[20]

Under Article 31021[21] of the Revised Penal Code, theft becomes qualified
if committed by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of confidence, or if the
property stolen is a motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle, or consists of coconuts
taken from the premises of a plantation, fish taken from a fishpond or fishery, or if
property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or
any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance.

In this case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts conviction of
appellant based on circumstantial evidence.

For circumstantial evidence to be sufficient for conviction, the following

conditions must be satisfied:

(a) There is more than one circumstance;

(b) The facts from which the circumstances are derived are proven; and
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt.22[22]

Circumstantial evidence suffices to convict an accused only if the

circumstances proved constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and
reasonable conclusion that points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others as the
guilty person; the circumstances proved must be consistent with each other,
consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same time
inconsistent with any other hypothesis except that of guilty.23[23]
 In this case, appellant was convicted of the crime of qualified theft based on
these pieces of circumstantial evidence:

(1) As a stay-in helper of Atty. Arturo Limoso, the [accused-appellant] had

access to the latter's room where his vault containing the missing items was kept
and where the key to the vault was placed;

(2) Upon discovery by Atty. Limoso of the loss of the missing items, the
police could no longer find in Atty. Limoso's house the clothes of the [accused-
appellant.]24[24]

The Court finds that the pieces of circumstantial evidence relied upon by the
appellate court are insufficient to convict appellant of the crime of qualified theft. In
the first circumstance, the Court notes that appellant was not the only stay-in helper
of Atty. Limoso, as the latter testified that he had two housemaids.25[25] Although
Atty. Limoso testified that only appellant, as his masseur, had access to his room,
this is doubtful, considering the Filipino lifestyle, in which a household helper is
normally tasked to clean the room of his/her employer. Further, in the second
circumstance, the disappearance of appellants clothes from Atty. Limosos house
after the discovery of the loss of the aforementioned valuables cannot be construed
as flight by appellant, since appellant was talking with the guards in the compound
where Atty. Limosos residence was located when he was arrested by the police.
 The two pieces of circumstantial evidence cited by the trial court and affirmed
by the appellate court do not form an unbroken chain that point to appellant as the
author of the crime; hence, their conclusion becomes merely conjectural. Notably,
the prosecution failed to establish the element of unlawful taking by appellant. Since
appellants statement during the custodial investigation was inadmissible in evidence
as he was not assisted by counsel,26[26] the prosecution could have presented the
person to whom appellant allegedly sold the pieces of jewelry as witness, but it did
not do so. It could have been the missing link that would have strengthened the
evidence of the prosecution.

The general rule is that factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by
the Court of Appeals, are not to be disturbed by this Court. However, the Court may
disregard such findings of the trial and appellate courts (1) when they are grounded
on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when there is grave abuse of discretion
in the appreciation of facts; and (3) when the findings of fact are conclusions without
mention of the specific evidence on which they are based or are premised on the
absence of evidence.27[27]
 The Court finds the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the trial and
appellate courts in convicting appellant to be insufficient in proving his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt absent any substantial evidence of unlawful taking by appellant.

The burden of proving the guilt of the accused rests on the prosecution; the
accused need not even offer evidence in his behalf.28[28] The constitutional
mandate of innocence prevails, unless the prosecution succeeds in proving by
satisfactory evidence the guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the accused.29[29] It
failed to do so in this case.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of

Appeals dated May 31, 2005 in CA-G.R. CR No. 28161, convicting appellant
Reynaldo Bayon y Ramos of the crime of qualified theft, is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Appellant Reynaldo Bayon is ACQUITTED of the crime charged on
reasonable doubt. The City Warden of the Quezon City Jail, EDSA, Kamuning, is
DIRECTED to cause the release of Reynaldo Bayon from confinement without
DELAY, unless he is being lawfully held for another cause, and to INFORM the
Court of his release or the reasons for his continued confinement within ten (10) days
from notice of this Decision.
No costs.

SO ORDERED.